I meant Anatolia Bronze Age ancestry, my bad. So lots of CHG and some Levant_BA + ANF.
Population structure in Italy using ancient and modern samples
- Thread starter Angela
- Start date
I meant Anatolia Bronze Age ancestry, my bad. So lots of CHG and some Levant_BA + ANF.
Messier 67
Banned
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
..........
Last edited:
One is outlying but the other 4 are where they are supposed to be.
A fairy tale.
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,328
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
I posted this in the mytrueancestry thread but I think it really belongs here.
"This is all conjecture until we have the samples from Moots, this paper if it's different, and hopefully, future ones from lots of other cultures in Italy, including some Terramare, samples from the ancient Veneto, from the Ligures and Celt Ligurians, some samples from the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Calabria, eastern Sicily, Puglia, colonization sites in Magna Graecia, Classical Greece including the islands and on and on, even Greek settlements in Rhodes, for example, or Phocaea.
So, my ideas are just "guesses" as are those of other people here and on other sites. I'm certainly not married to mine, and neither should they be married to theirs.
As for the "accomplishments" of the Romans, they span a huge period from the beginning of the Republic to the Imperial period to the fall. Different types of people may have contributed relatively more to one period than to another. Were the founders and early leaders of the Republic, particularly the "patricians", more "Northern Italian" like? I don't know. Were people like Cicero, a plebeian, more "Northern Italian" like or as a Plebeian more "Southern Italian" like? , Niebur, a 19th century historian, thought the Plebeians were foreigners who settled in early Roman who got citizenship. I don't know and maybe we'll never know. Even if they were foreigners, foreigners from where? Or were they the "original" inhabitants when the Latini arrived? I don't know yet.
"From 494 to 287 BC, the so-called "Conflict of the Orders" resulted in the establishment of plebeian offices (the tribunes and plebeian aediles), the publication of the laws (the Law of the Twelve Tables), the establishment of the right of plebeian–patrician intermarriage (by the passage of the Lex Canuleia), the opening of the highest offices of government and some state priesthoods to the plebeians and passage of legislation (the Lex Hortensia) that made resolutions passed by the assembly of plebeians, the concilium plebis, binding on all citizens."
This inclusion of other groups, often hostile groups, was part of the genius of the Romans, and the thing I like best about them.
"During the Second Samnite War (326–304 BC), plebeians who had risen to power through these social reforms began to acquire the aura of nobilitas, "nobility" (more literally "notability"), marking the creation of a ruling elite of nobiles that allied the interests of patricians and noble plebeians.[2] From the mid-4th century to the early 3rd century BC, several plebeian–patrician "tickets" for the consulship repeated joint terms, suggesting a deliberate political strategy of cooperation.[3] Although nobilitas was not a formal social rank during the Republican era, in general, a plebeian who had attained the consulship was regarded as having brought nobility to his family. Such a man was a novus homo ("new man"), a self-made noble, and his sons and descendants were nobiles.[4]"Mariusand Cicero are notable examples of novi homines in the late Republic, when many of Rome's richest and most powerful men—such as Lucullus, Crassus, and Pompeius—were plebeian nobles. Some or perhaps many noble plebeians, including Cicero and Lucullus, aligned their political interests with the faction of Optimates, conservatives who sought to preserve senatorialprerogatives. By contrast, the Populares, which sought to champion the plebs in the sense of "common people", were sometimes led by patricians such as Julius Caesar and Clodius Pulcher."
Marius famously married into the family of Julius Caesar. By the time of the Empire, we have people like Agrippa, a plebeian of low birth who married into the family of Augustus and whose descendants were Emperors . Was he part "Southern Italian" like? Then we have Livy, who seems to have been from Northern Italy. Many of the engineers who built all those roads and aqueducts all over Europe, and formed the first legions, and managed provinces, and worked in the law courts, helping to create the basis of the law of much of Europe, would have included many Southern Italian like "Romans".
Going all the way back to the earlier Romans, there would have been no Rome without the Etruscans, from whom they borrowed a great deal. However, from whom did the Etruscans learn those things? They learned from the Greeks and the Phoenicians. Cultures build one upon another. Modern populations are similarly one layer of ancient groups on top of another, then subject to drift.
I think there's plenty of "glory" to go around. I find the kind of hyper-identification of certain people on other sites with one group they want to claim as ancestors to the exclusion of all others, and the actual attempt, certainly in the past, to actually want to change the "ethnicity" of certain groups because they don't like their modern descendants really upsetting as well as clearly just wrong both factually and ethically.
Now I sound like a preachy Sunday school teacher, and in a response to someone who has nothing at all to do with the issues that bother me, but I guess I just took the opportunity to "unload" a little bit. Sorry.
"
"This is all conjecture until we have the samples from Moots, this paper if it's different, and hopefully, future ones from lots of other cultures in Italy, including some Terramare, samples from the ancient Veneto, from the Ligures and Celt Ligurians, some samples from the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Calabria, eastern Sicily, Puglia, colonization sites in Magna Graecia, Classical Greece including the islands and on and on, even Greek settlements in Rhodes, for example, or Phocaea.
So, my ideas are just "guesses" as are those of other people here and on other sites. I'm certainly not married to mine, and neither should they be married to theirs.
As for the "accomplishments" of the Romans, they span a huge period from the beginning of the Republic to the Imperial period to the fall. Different types of people may have contributed relatively more to one period than to another. Were the founders and early leaders of the Republic, particularly the "patricians", more "Northern Italian" like? I don't know. Were people like Cicero, a plebeian, more "Northern Italian" like or as a Plebeian more "Southern Italian" like? , Niebur, a 19th century historian, thought the Plebeians were foreigners who settled in early Roman who got citizenship. I don't know and maybe we'll never know. Even if they were foreigners, foreigners from where? Or were they the "original" inhabitants when the Latini arrived? I don't know yet.
"From 494 to 287 BC, the so-called "Conflict of the Orders" resulted in the establishment of plebeian offices (the tribunes and plebeian aediles), the publication of the laws (the Law of the Twelve Tables), the establishment of the right of plebeian–patrician intermarriage (by the passage of the Lex Canuleia), the opening of the highest offices of government and some state priesthoods to the plebeians and passage of legislation (the Lex Hortensia) that made resolutions passed by the assembly of plebeians, the concilium plebis, binding on all citizens."
This inclusion of other groups, often hostile groups, was part of the genius of the Romans, and the thing I like best about them.
"During the Second Samnite War (326–304 BC), plebeians who had risen to power through these social reforms began to acquire the aura of nobilitas, "nobility" (more literally "notability"), marking the creation of a ruling elite of nobiles that allied the interests of patricians and noble plebeians.[2] From the mid-4th century to the early 3rd century BC, several plebeian–patrician "tickets" for the consulship repeated joint terms, suggesting a deliberate political strategy of cooperation.[3] Although nobilitas was not a formal social rank during the Republican era, in general, a plebeian who had attained the consulship was regarded as having brought nobility to his family. Such a man was a novus homo ("new man"), a self-made noble, and his sons and descendants were nobiles.[4]"Mariusand Cicero are notable examples of novi homines in the late Republic, when many of Rome's richest and most powerful men—such as Lucullus, Crassus, and Pompeius—were plebeian nobles. Some or perhaps many noble plebeians, including Cicero and Lucullus, aligned their political interests with the faction of Optimates, conservatives who sought to preserve senatorialprerogatives. By contrast, the Populares, which sought to champion the plebs in the sense of "common people", were sometimes led by patricians such as Julius Caesar and Clodius Pulcher."
Marius famously married into the family of Julius Caesar. By the time of the Empire, we have people like Agrippa, a plebeian of low birth who married into the family of Augustus and whose descendants were Emperors . Was he part "Southern Italian" like? Then we have Livy, who seems to have been from Northern Italy. Many of the engineers who built all those roads and aqueducts all over Europe, and formed the first legions, and managed provinces, and worked in the law courts, helping to create the basis of the law of much of Europe, would have included many Southern Italian like "Romans".
Going all the way back to the earlier Romans, there would have been no Rome without the Etruscans, from whom they borrowed a great deal. However, from whom did the Etruscans learn those things? They learned from the Greeks and the Phoenicians. Cultures build one upon another. Modern populations are similarly one layer of ancient groups on top of another, then subject to drift.
I think there's plenty of "glory" to go around. I find the kind of hyper-identification of certain people on other sites with one group they want to claim as ancestors to the exclusion of all others, and the actual attempt, certainly in the past, to actually want to change the "ethnicity" of certain groups because they don't like their modern descendants really upsetting as well as clearly just wrong both factually and ethically.
Now I sound like a preachy Sunday school teacher, and in a response to someone who has nothing at all to do with the issues that bother me, but I guess I just took the opportunity to "unload" a little bit. Sorry.
"Messier 67
Banned
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
If I am wrong and the Italics were like those individuals in the North, and Rome was founded by Italic Latin and influenced by immigrants from Etruscan region, you are talking about massive amounts of Greeks moving to Rome to start a new life, in the Republican period too. Rome became a 1 million from those from Greek descent moving to Central Italy (also many Eastern Med people too). Central Italy today still mirrors Southern Italy, which mirrors Greece and Sicily. Campania and Latium have nearly identical haplogroup %s.
If Italic samples are close to Sardinia and Etruscans (closer to Sardinia), then I very well could be right in the Italics were the natives from the neolithic era. Which clearly opens up the Germanic language not as the combination of celt and slav, but a different language of I1s. This theory is independently supported for now in the existence of the Saxons who were 2/3s I1/I2 (pre-Pipins), according to one study.
Very interesting developments.
Northern Italy during the celtic invasions looks like a repeat of Spain, with neolithic women shacked up with new comers from Yamnaya.
The continuing saga of this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...n-descended-just-trio-Bronze-Age-leaders.html
The disappearance of the men, with some women remaining.
If Italic samples are close to Sardinia and Etruscans (closer to Sardinia), then I very well could be right in the Italics were the natives from the neolithic era. Which clearly opens up the Germanic language not as the combination of celt and slav, but a different language of I1s. This theory is independently supported for now in the existence of the Saxons who were 2/3s I1/I2 (pre-Pipins), according to one study.
Very interesting developments.
Northern Italy during the celtic invasions looks like a repeat of Spain, with neolithic women shacked up with new comers from Yamnaya.
The continuing saga of this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...n-descended-just-trio-Bronze-Age-leaders.html
The disappearance of the men, with some women remaining.
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,328
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
Please don't post comments like that, especially to civil members like Messier. This isn't Eurogenes. If you think the PCA disputes the conclusions of Messier, please explain why in a civil manner.
The "leaked" PCA is a mess since all the Iberians and Italians just get yellow squares, which is why I originally thought some t-roll had done this.
Also,please post the original PCA and the paper from which it came with the populations clearly labeled so we can make our own judgements.
Messier 67
Banned
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
In haplogroups, I am referring to paternal line, not maternal admixture. Central Italy and Southern Italy have nearly identical paternal lines.
I feel compelled to err on the side of caution in assuming the Italics could be the natives because I don't want to falsely judge them as the conan the barbarian (R1s).
And Tuscany has over 300% increase of Southern Caucasus than Lombardy, and many more fold increase in Aegean population. The theory that the Etruscans came from Northern Iran/Southern Caucasus to Aegean to Tuscany and formed a ruling elite in celtic areas is supported by the data.
No data on the Italics (xRome) has been released. And Roman being apart of the Italic tribes still support the Italics could be the native neolithic people.
In both cases of Lombardy and Tuscany, the neolithic remains at near identical levels to the incoming celtic non-female population (BA invaders in red), indicating the women survived like elsewhere in Spain, and ended up shacked with the celtic invader (unlike in Britain where most of the women died). In Lombardy, you have over 80% neolithic women and celtic non-female population combined. In Tuscany, the Aegean and surrounding areas make up 40% of population. That is substantial, some Eastern Med to Caucasus people did arrive in Tuscany in massive amount at some time compared to the surrounding areas, especially compared to the North.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132230-200-story-of-most-murderous-people-of-all-time-revealed-in-ancient-dna/
I feel compelled to err on the side of caution in assuming the Italics could be the natives because I don't want to falsely judge them as the conan the barbarian (R1s).
And Tuscany has over 300% increase of Southern Caucasus than Lombardy, and many more fold increase in Aegean population. The theory that the Etruscans came from Northern Iran/Southern Caucasus to Aegean to Tuscany and formed a ruling elite in celtic areas is supported by the data.
No data on the Italics (xRome) has been released. And Roman being apart of the Italic tribes still support the Italics could be the native neolithic people.
In both cases of Lombardy and Tuscany, the neolithic remains at near identical levels to the incoming celtic non-female population (BA invaders in red), indicating the women survived like elsewhere in Spain, and ended up shacked with the celtic invader (unlike in Britain where most of the women died). In Lombardy, you have over 80% neolithic women and celtic non-female population combined. In Tuscany, the Aegean and surrounding areas make up 40% of population. That is substantial, some Eastern Med to Caucasus people did arrive in Tuscany in massive amount at some time compared to the surrounding areas, especially compared to the North.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132230-200-story-of-most-murderous-people-of-all-time-revealed-in-ancient-dna/
Messier 67
Banned
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
Thank you Someone should provide circles on that chart because they are all one color and one shape (for Italy).
My comment was very civil. He thinks that Italics were the natives from the neolithic era. That's simply not possible and certainly that's not what the PCA shows.
Greeks in the PCA have a different symbol from the rest of southern Europe (Greek Macedonia, Greek Thessaly...). Starting from the Greeks, almost everything else is reconstructed.
The original PCA
Angela, so I suppose you agree with this.
Good thing this isn't Eurogenes. Such wrong comments are rarely read on Eurogenes.
Messier 67
Banned
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
There is no data on the ancient Italic tribes who morphed into the cities with the Greeks and Romans.
Central and Southern Italy is where the Italics lived, and both regions today are Greek in terms of paternal haplogroup. Not admixture or other charts.
If they are right:
Initially, historical linguists had generally assumed that the various Indo-European languages specific to ancient Italy belonged to a single branch of the family, parallel for example to that of Celtic or Germanic. The founder of this hypothesis is considered Antoine Meillet (1866-1936).
Gray and Atkinson come up by using their Bayesian phylogenetic model that the Italic branch separated from the Germanic branch 5500 years ago, roughly the start of the Bronze Age.
Then I am right. The Celts split the Germanic language speaking people to the north and the Italic speaking speaking to the south, into two different groups. Each developed their own new dialect, and thus language.
29% R1b in Latium; 29% R1b in Campania:
both 18% of J2 and both 11% of G:
https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml
Central and Southern Italy is where the Italics lived, and both regions today are Greek in terms of paternal haplogroup. Not admixture or other charts.
If they are right:
Initially, historical linguists had generally assumed that the various Indo-European languages specific to ancient Italy belonged to a single branch of the family, parallel for example to that of Celtic or Germanic. The founder of this hypothesis is considered Antoine Meillet (1866-1936).
Gray and Atkinson come up by using their Bayesian phylogenetic model that the Italic branch separated from the Germanic branch 5500 years ago, roughly the start of the Bronze Age.
Then I am right. The Celts split the Germanic language speaking people to the north and the Italic speaking speaking to the south, into two different groups. Each developed their own new dialect, and thus language.
29% R1b in Latium; 29% R1b in Campania:
both 18% of J2 and both 11% of G:
https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml
Thanks for sharing. So Etruscans range from Iberians to North Italians and Tuscans.
Nobody believes in this theory anymore. Even Davidski doesn't believe in it.
Davidski:
"It should be interesting to see how the authors of the paper(s) explain the obvious genetic similarity between the Italic speakers and Etruscans, but to me it looks like the Etruscan language was adopted by some Italic speakers without any significant accompanying gene flow from outside of Iron Age Italy."
Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 812
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
I think you're treating haplogroups like "peoples" too much, and also disregarding the extremely old age of some of these haploroups (like I1 and I2, though all extant I1 derives from a much later branch).
If my nMonte models using Global25 datasheets are not completely wrong, then it's clear that autosomally (Y-DNA haplogroups, especially of modern populations, can be very deceiving and hide much of the true story that took place, given many random things that cause genetic drift) the steppe-related input in North Italy and Central-Western Italy is not the same found in South Italy and, partly, in Central-Eastern Italy. The former (North and Central-Western) is much more formed by Bell Beaker influx, the latter much more influenced by Catacomb/Late Yamnaya-related and CWC influx. I don't think that's just a coincidence, because many of the BA/IA Balkans and Greek samples also tend to prefer Catacomb, West Yamnaya and, in more northern parts, CWC. Besides, we just can't ignore that Venetic looks close to Italic, but with some distinctive features linking it to Celtic and Germanic. So it might've been derived from a sister language of Proto-Italic that stayed in the north. By the early Roman era, much of South Italy, especially in the lower lands, was mostly non-Italic, unless you take for granted that Sicel and other little known languages were definitely Italic when we have no such proofs. Greek and Messapic were spoken there.
Messier 67
Banned
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
You failed to read my initial post which compared Latium with Campania, which was the Central and Southern I was comparing. Latium/Rome is best represented in Central. Think of Central Italy, and most people think of Rome. Think of Southern Italy and most people think of Naples. And Campania/Naples is best represented in South. Latium is where the Romans and Latins lived. And Naples Bay was founded by the Greeks (and others). The Rome-Naples-Sicily-Greece connection.
Messier 67
Banned
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
Steppe, which was addressed:
Also identical in Ts and Es and one percent difference in R1a.
Visit any storm site, and these individuals will make anything think Northern Italy begins in Latium, when Southern Italy begins more in Latium than the North.
Back to my original point, you would need heavy Greek Southern Italian and Eastern Med influx to push most Romans into the Southern Italian camp (If Italic were BA invaders/settlers in Central and Southern Italy). Which was my small point to begin with.
Also identical in Ts and Es and one percent difference in R1a.
Visit any storm site, and these individuals will make anything think Northern Italy begins in Latium, when Southern Italy begins more in Latium than the North.
Back to my original point, you would need heavy Greek Southern Italian and Eastern Med influx to push most Romans into the Southern Italian camp (If Italic were BA invaders/settlers in Central and Southern Italy). Which was my small point to begin with.
This thread has been viewed 329094 times.